CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT07288164Updated Jan 6, 2026

Comparison of Eversion and Conventional Techniques in Carotid Endarterectomy

An observational study in Atherosclerosis Occlusive Disease, Stroke (CVA) or Transient Ischemic Attack and Endarterectomy, Carotid, sponsored by Kastamonu University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-01-06.

Sponsored by Kastamonu University · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
129
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Atherosclerotic carotid artery disease is responsible for approximately 20% of strokes worldwide, and its treatment options include medical therapy, surgery, and stenting.Surgical management is prioritized over medical and stent based approaches and can be performed using either the conventional methed closed primarily or with a patch or the eversion technique.The aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes of the eversion technique and the conventional method with primary closure.

02

Conditions studied

  • Atherosclerosis Occlusive Disease
  • Stroke (CVA) or Transient Ischemic Attack
  • Endarterectomy, Carotid
03

In context

Stroke

7,286 studies on the registry are indexed under Stroke; 2,007 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 129 is below the median of 160 across 1,692 observational studies indexed under Stroke.

Browse Stroke studies →

Lead sponsor

Kastamonu University is the lead sponsor of 46 studies on the registry; 10 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

Carotid endarterectomy was performed in patients with 50-99% stenosis who had experienced stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) within the last six months, as well as in asymptomatic patients with 70-99% stenosis. These patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical technique applied conventional or eversion carotid endarterectomy and intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes were compared between the groups.

Inclusion criteria

-Patients undergoing isolated carotid endarterectomy, either emergently or electively

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients younger than 18 years of age
  • Patients scheduled for concomitant cardiac surgery
  • Reoperations
05

Study design

Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
129 participants (actual)
Target follow-up
30 Days
Patient registry
Yes

Groups and cohorts

  • Conventional endarterectomy

    Who were performed conventional,primarily endarterectomy patients are included this group

    Procedure: Carotid endarterectomy, conventional

  • Eversion

    Who were performed eversion endarterectomy patients are included this group

    Procedure: Carotid endarterectomy, eversion

Interventions

  • ProcedureCarotid endarterectomy, conventional

    In this study, patients were divided into two groups according to whether they underwent conventional or eversion endarterectomy. Although the eversion technique is the oldest method, the conventional approach is still widely performed due to its ease of application, despite not being recommended in current guidelines. Therefore, our aim is to contribute to the literature by comparing these two methods. The conventional method is performed with a longitudinal incision extending from the common carotid artery (CCA) to the internal carotid artery (ICA) up to the end of the plaque. The arteriotomy is then closed either primarily or with the use of a patch. In our study, we performed only the primary closure method..

  • ProcedureCarotid endarterectomy, eversion

    In this study, patients were divided into two groups according to whether they underwent conventional or eversion endarterectomy. Although the eversion technique is the oldest method, the conventional approach is still widely performed due to its ease of application, despite not being recommended in current guidelines. Therefore, our aim is to contribute to the literature by comparing these two methods.The eversion method is performed by transecting the internal carotid artery (ICA) from the common carotid artery (CCA). The arteriotomy is then closed in an end to side fashion.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of participants with stroke and death

    All strokes and/or deaths occurring within 30 days after surgery

    Time frame: 30 days

  2. Number of participants with symptoms of occlusion

    Early carotid restenosis or occlusion within 30 days after surgery

    Time frame: Postoperative 30 days

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Sehit Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Sancaktepe Training and Research Hospital
    Istanbul, Turkey (Türkiye)
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Ferguson GG, Eliasziw M, Barr HW, Clagett GP, Barnes RW, Wallace MC, Taylor DW, Haynes RB, Finan JW, Hachinski VC, Barnett HJ. The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial : surgical results in 1415 patients. Stroke. 1999 Sep;30(9):1751-8. doi: 10.1161/01.str.30.9.1751. PubMed 10471419 ↗
  • Wu S, Wang H, Guo J, Zhang F, Pan D, Ning Y, Gu Y, Guo L. Comparative on the effectiveness and safety of different carotid endarterectomy techniques: a single-center Retrospective Study. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024 Jun 20;19(1):338. doi: 10.1186/s13019-024-02838-0. PubMed 38902703 ↗
  • Schneider JR, Helenowski IB, Jackson CR, Verta MJ, Zamor KC, Patel NH, Kim S, Hoel AW; Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative and the Mid-America Vascular Study Group. A comparison of results with eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy from the Vascular Quality Initiative and the Mid-America Vascular Study Group. J Vasc Surg. 2015 May;61(5):1216-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.01.049. PubMed 25925539 ↗
  • Jonsson M, Lindstrom D, Wanhainen A, Djavani Gidlund K, Gillgren P. Near Infrared Spectroscopy as a Predictor for Shunt Requirement During Carotid Endarterectomy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017 Jun;53(6):783-791. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2017.02.033. Epub 2017 Apr 19. PubMed 28431821 ↗
  • Ben Ahmed S, Daniel G, Benezit M, Ribal JP, Rosset E. Eversion carotid endarterectomy without shunt: concerning 1385 consecutive cases. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2017 Aug;58(4):543-550. doi: 10.23736/S0021-9509.16.08495-0. Epub 2015 Feb 12. PubMed 25673097 ↗
  • Deser SB, Demirag MK, Kolbakir F. Does surgical technique influence the postoperative hemodynamic disturbances and neurological outcomes in carotid endarterectomy? Acta Chir Belg. 2019 Apr;119(2):78-82. doi: 10.1080/00015458.2018.1459364. Epub 2018 Apr 27. PubMed 29701500 ↗
  • Yuruk MA, Ozdemir AC. Eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy: A retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2025 Aug 15;104(33):e43908. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000043908. PubMed 40826780 ↗
  • Yasa H, Akyuz M, Yakut N, Aslan O, Akyuz D, Ozcem B, Tulukoglu E, Gurbuz A. Comparison of two surgical techniques for carotid endarterectomy: conventional and eversion. Neurochirurgie. 2014 Feb-Apr;60(1-2):33-7. doi: 10.1016/j.neuchi.2013.12.003. Epub 2014 Mar 24. PubMed 24673880 ↗
  • Lee JH, Suh BY. Comparative results of conventional and eversion carotid endarterectomy. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2014 Oct;87(4):192-6. doi: 10.4174/astr.2014.87.4.192. Epub 2014 Sep 25. PubMed 25317414 ↗
  • Kakisis JD, Antonopoulos CN, Moulakakis KG, Schneider F, Geroulakos G, Ricco JB. Protamine Reduces Bleeding Complications without Increasing the Risk of Stroke after Carotid Endarterectomy: A Meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016 Sep;52(3):296-307. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.05.033. Epub 2016 Jul 4. PubMed 27389942 ↗
  • Gahremanpour A, Perin EC, Silva G. Carotid artery stenting versus endarterectomy: a systematic review. Tex Heart Inst J. 2012;39(4):474-87. PubMed 22949763 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 6, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07288164
Lead sponsor
Kastamonu University
Responsible party
İsmail DAL (Assistant Professor Literally: Doctor Teaching Member, Kastamonu University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Dec 17, 2025
Start date
May 15, 2025
Primary completion
Aug 30, 2025
Completion
Sep 30, 2025
Last update
Jan 6, 2026

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion